This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated
04.10.2000, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 2
Patiala, vide which, it acquitted the accused (now respondent).

2. The facts, in brief are that, on 05.02.1999, the prosecutrix,
aged about 15/16 years, daughter of Dilan Kumari, complainant, left
home, at about 9.00 AM, for her school, but did not come back. The
complainant tried her level best to locate her. When she could not find
any clue, with regard to the whereabouts of the prosecutrix, she made a
statement PB, on 14.02.1999, expressing her suspicion against the
accused. She also stated that Rama Ram alias Ramu, accused, used to
tease her daughter, on her way to school and had refused to desist from
his nefarious designs, despite warnings, given to him. She further
stated that the room of the accused at Derabassi, was also found locked,
since the day her daughter was found missing. On the basis of the
statement exhibit PB, made by Dilan Kumari, formal First Information
Report, exhibit PB/2, was registered, under Sections 363 and 366 of the
Indian Penal Code.

3. During the course of investigation, on 15.02.1999, the
accused and the prosecutrix were found, at Railway Station, Ambala,
where they were apprehended. The statement of the prosecutrix, exhibit
PA, was recorded. She stated that Rama Ram alias Ramu, accused, who
was residing near her house used to tease her and her mother had also
warned him. She further stated that, on 03.02.1999, when her mother
was away, Rama Ram alias Ramu, accused, came to her room and
forcibly caught hold of her and took her to his room, under threat of
life and subjected her to rape. It was further stated by her that on
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 3
05.02.1999, when she was going to school, she was intercepted, on the
way, by the accused and was asked to accompany him, to Chandigarh,
for the purpose of marriage. He took her to Chandigarh and then to
Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where, she was subjected to rape, by
him, and ultimately, they were apprehended at Railway Station,
Ambala. On the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, offence under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, was added.

4. On 15.02.1999, the medico-legal examination of the
prosecutrix was conducted. Dr. Anita Mohindru, Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Dera Bassi, found that the hymen of the prosecutrix was
ruptured and the vagina admitted one finger easily. She, however, did
not find any external mark of injury on her person. The accused was
also got medico-legally examined and was found fit to conduct sexual
intercourse. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was produced before Ms.
Navjot Sohal, Illaqa Magistrate, Rajpura, for recording her statement,
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her statement,
exhibit PA/2, was recorded, by the Illaqa Magistrate, wherein, she
stated that she was having love affair with the accused and she had a
soft corner for him. She further stated that she accompanied the
accused to Chandigarh and then to Renukot (Uttar Pradesh), from
where, they were apprehended. She, in clear-cut terms, in her statement
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that, at no
stage, she was subjected to rape by the accused. After the completion of
investigation, the accused was challaned.

Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 4

5. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing
Magistrate, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied
upon by the prosecution. After the case was received, by commitment,
charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, was
framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed
judicial trial.

7. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating
circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He
pleaded false implication. He took up a specific defence, to the effect,
that the prosecutrix was in love with him, and wanted to contract
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 5
marriage, which was not liked, by her mother. It was further stated by
him that a false case was got registered against him, at the instance of
the mother of the prosecutrix, on the basis of her forged date of birth
certificate, so that they could not perform marriage. It was further
stated by him that before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura, the
prosecutrix, in her statement, under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, in clear-cut terms, stated that she accompanied
him voluntarily. However, no evidence, in defence was led by the
accused.

8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going
through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted the accused
(now respondent).

9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the State
of Punjab.

10. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone
through the record of the case, carefully.

11. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the trial
Court, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the date of birth of
the prosecutrix was not 18.11.1983, on the basis of the certificate,
issued by the Principal of S.S. Jain Girls Senior Secondary School,
Dera Bassi. She further submitted that the trial Court, was wrong, in
coming to the conclusion that the age of the prosecutrix, at the relevant
time, was 19/20 years. She further submitted that the trial Court, was
also wrong, in coming to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was a
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 6
consenting party, and, as such, no offence was committed by the
accused. She further submitted that the judgement of the trial Court,
being perverse, is liable to be set-aside.

12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent
submitted that the trial Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion
that, at the relevant time, the age of the prosecutrix was about 19/20
years. He further submitted that, no reliance, on certificate PC, issued
by the Principal of S.S. Jain Girls Senior Secondary School, Dera
Bassi, could be placed, as the original admission register, on the basis
of which, such certificate was prepared, was not produced by her. He
further submitted that the trial Court, was right, in coming to the
conclusion, that the prosecutrix remained with the accused, for a
number of days, and did not raise any alarm, and, as such, she was a
consenting party. He further submitted that the judgement of the trial
Court, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, warrants
no interference.

13. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to
what was the age of the prosecutrix, at the relevant time. The statement
of Dilan Kumari, mother of the prosecutrix, who appeared as PW5, is
very significant to determine this question. During the course of cross-
examination, she stated her age, as 42 years as on 04.02.2000 (date of
her deposition). It was further stated by her that she was married while
she was running in 17th year. She further stated that her elder son was
born eleven months after her marriage. She further stated that her
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 7
daughter, the prosecutrix, was born three years, after the birth of her
son aforesaid. It means that the marriage of Dilan Kumari, mother of
the prosecutrix was solemnized about 25 years before 04.02.2000.
Since the elder son was born to her eleven months, after her marriage,
it means that he was born 24 years earlier to that date i.e. 04.02.2000.
Since, as per her own statement, the prosecutrix was born three years
after the birth of her elder son, it means that she was born about 20/21
years, earlier to 04.02.2000. The alleged occurrence took place, on
05.02.1999. If the statement of Dilan Kumari, mother of the prosecutrix
is admitted to be correct, on this aspect of the matter, and there is no
reason to disbelieve the same, then as on 05.02.1999, the age of the
prosecutrix was 19/20 years. The birth certificate of the prosecutrix,
was not produced. No doubt, according to PC, certificate issued by the
Principal, S.S. Jain Girls Senior Secondary School, Dera Bassi, the date
of birth of prosecutrix is shown as 18.11.1983. However, the
authenticity of this document, cannot be vouch-safed, as Krishna
Sharma, Principal, PW6, did not state, as to who got admitted the
prosecutrix, in 8th class of S.S. Jain Girls Senior Secondary School,
Dera Bassi. She also did not state, as to on the basis of which document
or data, she recorded the date of birth of the prosecutrix, in the
admission register of the school, as 18.11.1983. During the course of
cross-examination, she admitted that she had not brought the admission
register, showing entry regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix, on
the basis whereof, she allegedly issued PC, certificate. She further
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 8
stated that she did not know, as to, in which school, the prosecutrix
studied upto 7th class. In the absence of production of any data/material,
on the basis whereof, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded,
in the admission register, no reliance, can be placed on exhibit PC.
Exhibit PC, document can be said to be of doubtful authenticity. It is a
matter of general experience, that entries in the school register
regarding the date of birth of their wards, are often got recorded by
their parents, showing them to be younger in age, so as to ensure that,
in future, whenever the necessity arose, they could derive benefit from
such lesser age, having been recorded, in the said register. Since there
is contradiction between PC, certificate, and the ocular evidence of
Dilan Kumari, regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix, the view,
which is favourable to the accused, is required to be taken. In other
words, the statement of Dilan Kumari, complainant, that, at the relevant
time, the age of the prosecutrix was 19/20 years, is required to be taken
into consideration in comparison to the certificate PC. The trial Court,
in our opinion, was, thus, right in holding that the age of the
prosecutrix on 05.02.1999, the date of alleged occurrence, was not
below 16 years, but on the other hand, was 19/20 years and she was,
thus, major. The finding of the trial Court, in this regard, being correct,
is affirmed.

14. Now the next question, that arises for consideration, is, as
to whether, the accused (now respondent), kidnapped the prosecutrix,
from the lawful guardianship of her parents, with an intent to subject
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 9
her to sexual intercourse and actually committed sexual intercourse,
without her consent and against her will. Since it has been held above,
that the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of the alleged occurrence,
was 19/20 years, she was major. She could distinguish between her
good and bad. The statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded, by Ms. Navjot Sohal,
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura, on 16.02.1999, which is exhibit
PA/2. In that statement, she in clear-cut terms stated, that she was
having love affair with the accused and accompanied him of her own
accord. She also stated that she told the accused that he should take her
to some distant place, otherwise her mother would kill her. She further
stated, in that statement, that she was not subjected to sexual
intercourse, by the accused. No doubt, when she appeared, in the Court,
as PW11, it was stated by her, in her examination-in-chief, that the
accused, took her, on the pretext that somebody wanted to meet her, at
Chandigarh, and on account of that reason, she accompanied him, to
Chandigarh. She also stated in her examination-in-chief, that she was
subjected to forcible sexual intercourse many times, by the accused.
However, when she was confronted with her previous statement,
exhibit PA/2, she admitted having made the same. During the course of
cross-examination, she admitted it as correct, that she had got recorded,
in her statement, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
before the Magistrate, that at no stage, the accused had committed any
forcible rape or sexual intercourse with her. She, however, in the same
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 10
breath, stated that it was wrongly recorded therein. Ms. Navjot Sohal,
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura, appeared as PW1, and stated that
she recorded the statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, correctly and without any pressure. From
the careful scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecutrix, vis-a-vis her
previous statement, exhibit PA/2, under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, only one and one inescapable conclusion, that can
be arrived at, is to the effect, that she was not kidnapped by the accused
from her lawful guardianship, with an intent to commit rape with her,
but she accompanied him of her own accord, and voluntarily, as she
was having love affair with him. Since she accompanied the accused
voluntarily, the offences, punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the
Indian Penal Code, were not constituted. The trial Court, was, thus,
right, in coming to such a conclusion. The finding of the trial Court, in
this regard, being correct, is affirmed.

15. The next question, that arises for consideration is, as to
whether, the prosecutrix was a consenting party, to the act of sexual
intercourse, or not. It may be stated here, that from the evidence, on
record, as would be discussed, hereinafter, it was proved beyond doubt,
that she was a consenting party. No doubt, in her examination-in-chief,
while appearing, as PW11, she stated that she was subjected to sexual
intercourse, by the accused forcibly. The statement made by her, under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, completely exonerated
the accused. She, in clear-cut terms, in that statement, stated that she
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 11
was not subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Men may lie, but the
circumstances and the documents do not. It was on 05.02.1999, that the
prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused. She remained with
the accused, from 05.02.1999 to 15.02.1999, when ultimately, both of
them were apprehended, by the Police, at Railway Station, Ambala.
During the course of her cross-examination, it was stated by her, that
she remained with the accused throughout, while travelling, till both of
them were apprehended. She further stated that she did not raise any
alarm when the accused was taking her to different places. Had the
accused, forcibly taken away the prosecutrix or subjected her to
forcible sexual intercourse, while travelling, in buses and trains, she
could raise alarm, so as to attract the attention of the people. There is
nothing, on the record, that the accused ever held her any threat that she
would be killed, in case, she raised alarm. From 05.02.1999 to
15.02.1999, she had many occasions, to complain, against the accused,
to the respectables of the places, where she accompanied him, or to the
Police, that she was forcibly taken away, by the accused, and subjected
to forcible sexual intercourse. She, however, did not make any
complaint, to any respectable or the Police. No injury, on the person of
the prosecutrix was found by the doctor, who medico-legally examined
her. Had she been forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, she would
have put up a stiffest resistance, to such an act of the accused. In that
event, marks of violence, would have certainly been found, on her
body. Since, no injury, was found, on any part of the body of the
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 12
prosecutrix, it could be said that she was not subjected to forcible
sexual intercourse, by the accused, but was a consenting party. Taylor
in "Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence Volume II"
while dealing with the cases of rape, on a grown up and an experienced
girl, observed as follows:-

"Unless under the influence of drink or
drugs or asleep or ill, a fully grown girl or
adult woman should be able to resist a sex
assault. We should expect to find evidence of
a struggle to avoid sexual contact or
penetration, and may well feel uncertainly
about the real nature of an alleged assault in
its absence.

A false accusation of rape may sometimes be
exposed by marks of violence being wholly
inadequate or absent.

Bruises upon the arms or the neck may be
considered to constitute some evidence of a
struggle; and impressions of finger nails are
also significant. Bruises or scratches about
the inner side of the thighs and knees may be
inflicted during attempts to abduct the legs
forcibly, and care must also be taken to
examine the back, for the victim may have
been pinned against the wall or floor. It is
important to record these in detail, and to
say, if possible, how fresh they are. The
aging of bruises, is, as was indicated in
Volume I, a matter of some uncertainly in the
absence of microscopy.

Strong corroborative evidence of a struggle
might be obtained from an examination of
the accused, for similar marks of bruises or
scratches about the arms or face, and
possibly evidence about his penis, though
this is less likely."

In similar circumstances in Partap Misra Vs. State of Orissa AIR 1977
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 13
(S.C.) 1307, the accused were acquitted of the charge of commission of
offence of rape, when the marks of scratches or injuries, were not
found, on their person and on the person of the prosecutrix. In the
instant case, as stated above, there was no mark of scratches or
external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. There was no fresh
rupture of hymn of the prosecutrix. Even there was no mark of injury
on the person of the accused, who was medico-legally examined by
Dr. R.K. Sood, PW3. The medical evidence of the doctors, aforesaid,
completely ruled out the theory of commission of rape by the accused.
On the other hand, the medical evidence and the other circumstances,
referred to above, clearly proved that it was a case of consent, on the
part of the prosecutrix. The trial Court, was, thus, right, in holding that
the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she was not subjected to
forcible sexual intercourse, by the accused. The finding of the trial
Court, in this regard, being based on the correct appreciation of
evidence and law, on the point, is upheld.

16. Normally, it is presumed, that no girl or a married lady
would level a false allegation of rape, or other sexual offence, against
the accused, by putting her honour, and character, at stake, but it
cannot be applied universally. Each case has to be determined, on the
factual matrix thereof. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in
Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat Vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 (1)
RCR Crl. 859 (S.C.). So in the present scenario, prevailing in our
society, it could not be completely ruled out, that a young girl, or a
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 14
woman, would, in no case, raise false allegations of rape, against the
accused. In the instant case, as stated above, the prosecutrix being
major, accompanied the accused, to various places, and enjoyed the act
of sexual intercourse, with him, from 05.02.1999 to 15.02.1999, but
when, she was apprehended alongwith the accused, she apparently
under the pressure of her mother Dilan Kumari, PW5, while appearing
as (PW11), stated that she was subjected to forcible intercourse,
though, in her statement, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which was recorded, on 16.02.1999, one day, after her
recovery, before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura, she in clear-
cut terms, stated that she had love affair with the accused and
accompanied him of her own accord and was not subjected to forcible
sexual intercourse by the accused. A girl, who keeps on changing her
statements, from time to time, at various stages of the judicial
proceedings, cannot be said to be a reliable witness. The principle of
law, laid down, in Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat's case (supra), is,
thus, fully applicable, to the facts of the present case. On the basis of
the facts & circumstances prevailing, in this case, the trial Court, was
right, in coming to the conclusion that the accused was falsely
implicated, by the prosecutrix, at the instance of her mother.

17. No other point was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

18. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the view,
taken by the trial Court, on the basis of appreciation of evidence,
produced, could be said to be a reasonably possible view. It is settled
Criminal Appeal No. 362-DBA of 2001 15
principle of law, that when two views are possible, on the basis of the
evidence, produced by the prosecution, one favourable to the accused
and the other favourable to the prosecution, then the view favourable to
the accused is required to be taken. The judgement, rendered by the
trial Court, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or
perversity. The same deserves to be upheld.

19. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal, being without
merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed.